Mohamed Zahid Yon bin Mohamed Fuad & Anor v Fat Boys Records Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2022] 5 MLJ 764 involves 6 inter-related appeals heard together before the Court of Appeal. The appeals dealt with the effect of non-disclosure of material facts and delay on the application for an Anton Piller Order (“APO”) which is essentially a ‘search and seizure’ order.

APPEALS 372 and 409 370 and 371 408 and 410
APPELLANT 1.     Mohamed Zahid Yon bin Mohamed Fuad (“Zahid”)

2.     Fat Boys Sdn Bhd (“FBSB”)

1.     Zahid

2.     FBSB

1.     FB Group Sdn Bhd (“FBGSB”)

2.     Muniruddeen Bin KMS Abdul Azis (“Munir”)

RESPONDENT Fat Boys Records Sdn Bhd (“Respondent”)
SUBJECT MATTER Appeal against the High Court Judge’s (“HCJ”) decision in refusing stay. Appeal against HCJ’s decision in dismissing the Appellants’ applications to set aside an ex parte APO and granting the Respondent’s application for an inter parte APO.
STATUS/ DECISION Withdrawn on hearing day. Struck out with no order as to costs. All appeals allowed and the HCJ’s decisions were set aside.

Zahid Yon – Brief Timeline

Click on the link above for the brief timeline.

Arising from the civil suit filed by the Respondent on 28 Sep 2020 (the “4th Suit”), an ex parte APO was granted. The APO essentially allows Zahid’s residential address, FBSB’s business address and FBGSB’s business address to be searched. The items to be seized and searched included Respondent’s assets (equipment and documents), FBSB and FBGSB list of clients, human resources documents, project listings and secretarial documents, and Zahid’s emails.


APO Requirements

Click on link above for APO requirements.

In relation to the full and frank disclosure, the duty of the applicant is laid out in Order 29, rule 1(2A) of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC”), where the affidavit in in support of an application made ex parte must contain a clear and concise statement of:


Answer: No.

Reason: –

CBT Charges

Oppressive Conduct


Answer: Yes.

Reason: –

D.   Key Takeaway

APO is crucial for a plaintiff of a civil suit in its attempt to preserve the evidence of their claim. Given the nature of APO, the Courts have repeatedly stressed that an APO is a draconian order and even likened it to a ‘nuclear’ weapon in law. Therefore, the Courts call for strict compliance with the key requirements of an APO and O. 29, r. 1(2A) of the ROC.

For future applicants of an APO, make sure that you comply with the requirements, especially to disclose all relevant material facts even if they are not favourable to your application, and do not delay your inter parte application after securing the ex parte application.


Food for thought:

Even if an ex parte APO was ultimately set aside, but if the true intention is for revenge and retaliation, perhaps it has already been achieved.

Written by: Rachel Chong ([email protected]).  Rachel Chong assists Rachel Lim ([email protected]) for Intellectual Property disputes handled by the firm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *